The Order Paper and Notice Paper is a document that guides the deliberations of the Senate and lists items of business currently before it. These items are listed in several different categories and in a priority according to an arrangement adopted by the Senate as stipulated in the rules. The majority of these items constitute the Orders of the Day which are called following Routine Proceedings. These items are themselves divided into two principal categories - government business and other business. Within each of these two categories are items for bills, motions, inquiries and reports of committees.
The Notice Paper contains the text of motions and inquiries not yet called for debate.
The Order Paper and Notice Paper is prepared every day in advance of the actual sitting.
Order of Business
(The following is an outline of a typical sitting day in the Senate. Variations are possible subject to the Rules and to the decisions of the Senate.)
Senators’ Statements (15 minutes)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS (30 minutes)
- Tabling of Documents
- Presenting or Tabling Reports from Standing or Special Committees
- Government Notices of Motions
- Government Notices of Inquiries
- Introduction and First Reading of Government Bills
- Introduction and First Reading of Senate Public Bills
- First Reading of Commons Public Bills
- Reading of Petitions for Private Bills
- Introduction and First Reading of Private Bills
- Tabling of Reports from Interparliamentary Delegations
- Notices of Motions
- Notices of Inquiries
- Tabling of Petitions
Question Period (30 minutes)
Delayed Answers
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Government Business
- Bills – Messages from the House of Commons
- Bills – Third Reading
- Bills – Reports of Committees
- Bills – Second Reading
- Reports of Committees – Other
- Motions
- Inquiries
- Other
Other Business
- Bills – Messages from the House of Commons
- Senate Public Bills – Third Reading
- Commons Public Bills – Third Reading
- Private Bills – Third Reading
- Senate Public Bills – Reports of Committees
- Commons Public Bills – Reports of Committees
- Private Bills – Reports of Committees
- Senate Public Bills – Second Reading
- Commons Public Bills – Second Reading
- Private Bills – Second Reading
- Reports of Committees – Other
- Motions
- Inquiries
- Other
NOTICE PAPER
- Notices of Motions
- Notices of Inquiries
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills — Messages from the House of Commons
Nil
Bills — Third Reading
No. 1.
May 21, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator White, seconded by the Honourable Senator McIntyre, for the third reading of Bill S-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco).
No. 2.
May 22, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Eaton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gerstein, for the third reading of Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
No. 3.
May 8, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lang, seconded by the Honourable Senator Martin, for the third reading of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
Bills — Reports of Committees
Nil
Bills — Second Reading
Nil
Reports of Committees — Other
No. 1.
April 25, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Plett, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fortin-Duplessis, for the adoption of the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (Canadian Food Inspection Agency's User Fee Proposal for Importer Licensing for Non-federally Registered Sector Products, without amendment), tabled in the Senate on March 21, 2013.
No. 2.
March 20, 2013—Consideration of the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce entitled: Follow the Money: Is Canada Making Progress In Combatting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing? Not Really, tabled in the Senate on March 20, 2013.
Motions
No. 66.
By the Honourable Senator Carignan:
May 21, 2013—That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.
For Friday, May 24, 2013
No. 67.
By the Honourable Senator Carignan:
May 22, 2013—That the Special Senate Committee on Anti-Terrorism be dissolved from the time of the adoption of this motion.
Inquiries
No. 4.
April 17, 2013—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Carignan, calling the attention of the Senate to the budget entitled: Economic Action Plan 2013: Jobs Growth and Long-term prosperity, tabled in the House of Commons on March 21, 2013 by the Minister of Finance, the Honourable James M. Flaherty, P.C., M.P., and in the Senate on March 25, 2013.
Other
Nil
OTHER BUSINESS
Rule 4-15(2) states:
Except as otherwise ordered by the Senate, any item of Other Business on the Order Paper and any motion or inquiry on the Notice Paper that have not been proceeded with during 15 sitting days shall be dropped from the Order Paper and Notice Paper.
Consequently, the number appearing in parenthesis indicates the number of sittings since the item was last proceeded with.
Bills — Messages from the House of Commons
Nil
Senate Public Bills — Third Reading
No. 1. (eleven)
April 18, 2013—Third reading of Bill S-207, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act (non-derogation of aboriginal treaty rights), as amended.—(Honourable Senator Carignan)
Commons Public Bills — Third Reading
No. 1. (three)
April 30, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Plett, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tannas, for the third reading of Bill C-309, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (concealment of identity). —(Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C.)
No. 2. (six)
November 29, 2012—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Runciman, seconded by the Honourable Senator White, for the third reading of Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting).—(Honourable Senator Baker, P.C.)
No. 3. (eleven)
February 27, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, seconded by the Honourable Senator Braley, for the third reading of Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (incarceration). —(Honourable Senator Munson)
Private Bills — Third Reading
Nil
Senate Public Bills — Reports of Committees
No. 1. (five)
November 28, 2012—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ogilvie, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wallace, for the adoption of the fifteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Bill S-204, An Act to establish a national strategy for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI), with a recommendation), presented in the Senate on November 22, 2012. —(Honourable Senator Merchant)
No. 2. (six)
May 1, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ogilvie, seconded by the Honourable Senator Patterson, for the adoption of the twenty-third report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Bill S-202, An Act to establish and maintain a national registry of medical devices, with a recommendation), presented in the Senate on April 30, 2013.—(Honourable Senator Harb)
Commons Public Bills — Reports of Committees
Nil
Private Bills — Reports of Committees
Nil
Senate Public Bills — Second Reading
No. 1. (eight)
April 25, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Jaffer, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hubley, for the second reading of Bill S-216, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code (mental health treatment).—(Honourable Senator Carignan)
No. 2. (ten)
April 23, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cowan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tardif, for the second reading of Bill S-218, An Act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination.—(Honourable Senator Carignan)
Commons Public Bills — Second Reading
No. 1. (two)
April 16, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mitchell, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dyck, for the second reading of Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity).—(Honourable Senator Carignan)
No. 2. (two)
June 27, 2012—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Finley, seconded by the Honourable Senator Frum, for the second reading of Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom). —(Honourable Senator Cowan)
No. 3. (five)
May 2, 2013—Second reading of Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment).—(Honourable Senator Carignan)
Private Bills — Second Reading
Nil
Reports of Committees — Other
No. 1.
May 22, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator LeBreton, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Carignan, for the adoption of the twenty-fifth report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (Policies and guidelines relating to Senators' travel), presented in the Senate on May 9, 2013.—(Honourable Senator Cools)
No. 2. (one)
May 21, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ogilvie, for the adoption of the twenty-fourth report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (Examination of Senator Harb's Primary and Secondary Residence Status), presented in the Senate on May 9, 2013.—(Honourable Senator Cools)
No. 3. (three)
March 6, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Smith, P.C. (Cobourg), seconded by the Honourable Senator Fraser, for the adoption of the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (Amendment to the Rules of the Senate), presented in the Senate on March 5, 2013.—(Honourable Senator Carignan)
No. 4. (twelve)
April 17, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Smith, P.C. (Cobourg), seconded by the Honourable Senator Comeau, for the adoption of the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (Amendments to the Rules of the Senate), presented in the Senate on March 19, 2013.—(Honourable Senator Carignan)
No. 5. (twelve)
April 17, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Smith, P.C. (Cobourg), seconded by the Honourable Senator Comeau, for the adoption of the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (Amendments to the Rules of the Senate), presented in the Senate on March 6, 2013.—(Honourable Senator Carignan)
No. 6. (fifteen)
December 13, 2012—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Smith, P.C. (Cobourg), seconded by the Honourable Senator Fraser, for the adoption of the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (Amendments to the Rules of the Senate), presented in the Senate on December 12, 2012.—(Honourable Senator Cools)
No. 7. (fifteen)
December 13, 2012—Consideration of the twentieth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, entitled: Statutory Review on the Provisions and Operation of the Act to amend the Criminal Code (production of records in sexual offence proceedings), tabled in the Senate on December 13, 2012.—(Honourable Senator Runciman)
Motions
No. 75. (three)
May 1, 2012—Resuming debate on the motion, as amended, of the Honourable Senator Comeau, seconded by the Honourable Senator Di Nino:
That the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament be authorized to examine and report on the powers and responsibilities of the officers of parliament, and their reporting relationships to the two houses; and
That the committee present its final report no later than March 31, 2014.—(Honourable Senator Carignan)
No. 162. (three)
May 8, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dallaire, seconded by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C.:
That the Special Senate Committee on Anti-Terrorism be authorized to examine and report on the creation, role and mandate of a potential National Security Committee of Parliamentarians;
That the Special Senate Committee on Anti-Terrorism be authorized to examine and report on the role of women in the process of deradicalization in Canada and abroad; and
That the Committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than December 31, 2013, and that the Committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until March 31, 2014.—(Honourable Senator Dallaire)
No. 144. (seven)
February 28, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion, as amended, of the Honourable Senator Cools, seconded by the Honourable Senator Comeau:
That this case of privilege, relating to the actions of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, be referred to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament for consideration, in particular with respect to the consequences for the Senate, for the Senate Speaker, for the Parliament of Canada and for the country's international relations;
And on the motion of the Honourable Senator Tardif, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cowan, that the question be referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration. —(Honourable Senator Comeau)
No. 161. (seven)
April 30, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gerstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Runciman:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce be authorized to examine and report on the ability of individuals to establish a registered disability savings plan (RDSP), with particular emphasis on legal representation and the ability of individuals to enter into a contract; and
That the Committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than June 30, 2013, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 180 days after the tabling of the final report.—(Honourable Senator Tardif)
No. 158. (eleven)
April 18, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lovelace Nicholas:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to:
Review the temporary foreign workers program and the possible abuse of the system through the hiring of foreign workers to replace qualified and available Canadian workers;
Review the criteria and procedure to application assessment and approval;
Review the criteria and procedure for compiling a labour market opinion;
Review the criteria and procedure for assessing qualifications of foreign workers;
Review interdepartmental procedures and responsibilities regarding foreign workers in Canada;
Provide recommendations to ensure that the program cannot be abused in any way that negatively affects Canadian workers; and
That the Committee submit its final report no later than April 30, 2014, and retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 180 days after the tabling of the final report. —(Honourable Senator Carignan)
No. 128. (thirteen)
December 5, 2012—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ataullahjan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Martin:
That the Senate of Canada express its support for Malala Yusufzai in light of her remarkable courage, tenacity and determined support for the right of girls everywhere to an education; offer its best wishes for her full recovery; express its gratitude for the courage of her family and the work of the staff at the Birmingham hospital in the United Kingdom; and offer its solidarity with girls and young women everywhere whose absolute right to equality of opportunity and quality education in every country of the world is and must always be universal and real. —(Honourable Senator Cools)
Inquiries
No. 68. (one)
May 21, 2013—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Callbeck, calling the attention of the Senate to the growing need for the federal government to collaborate with provincial and territorial governments and other stakeholders in order to ensure the sustainability of the Canadian health care system, and to lead in the negotiation of a new Health Accord to take effect at the expiration of the 2004 10-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care.—(Honourable Senator Callbeck)
No. 62. (two)
December 4, 2012—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Lovelace Nicholas, calling the attention of the Senate to the continuing tragedy of missing and murdered Aboriginal Women.—(Honourable Senator Jaffer)
No. 70. (two)
May 9, 2013—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Oliver, calling the attention of the Senate to the need to engage in a national conversation to call for the elimination of violence against women, of all ages, in all its forms including physical, sexual, or psychological abuse, and, in particular, on how we, as a national legislative body, can take the lead in educating, preventing, increasing national and global awareness on gender equality and reaffirming that violence against women constitutes a violation of the rights and fundamental freedoms of each individual.—(Honourable Senator Fortin-Duplessis)
No. 57. (three)
December 11, 2012—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cowan, calling the attention of the Senate to the many contributions of Canadian universities and other post-secondary institutions, as well as research institutes, to Canadian innovation and research, and in particular, to those activities they undertake in partnership with the private and not-for-profit sectors, with financial support from domestic and international sources, for the benefit of Canadians and others the world over.—(Honourable Senator Champagne, P.C.)
No. 19. (three)
February 7, 2012—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Callbeck, calling the attention of the Senate to the inequities of the Old Age Security Allowance for unattached, low-income seniors aged 60-64 years.—(Honourable Senator Callbeck)
No. 64. (four)
May 7, 2013—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Mitchell, calling the attention of the Senate to the need for an assessment of the impacts of cutting federal funding to the Experimental Lakes Area.—(Honourable Senator Mitchell)
No. 65. (four)
May 7, 2013—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Mitchell, calling the attention of the Senate to the work of Child, Family and Adolescent Mental Health and its need for ongoing support and infrastructure. —(Honourable Senator Mitchell)
No. 22. (six)
February 7, 2012—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Callbeck, calling the attention of the Senate to the importance of literacy, given that more than ever Canada requires increased knowledge and skills in order to maintain its global competitiveness and to increase its ability to respond to changing labour markets.—(Honourable Senator Bellemare)
No. 67. (seven)
April 30, 2013—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Callbeck, calling the attention of the Senate to the need to address the high rate of youth unemployment in Canada which has remained consistently high for more than two years.—(Honourable Senator Bellemare)
No. 59. (nine)
November 8, 2012—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools, calling the attention of the Senate to:
(a) the new monument recognizing the aircrews of World War II Bomber Command, called the Royal Air Force Bomber Command Memorial, and to the ceremony for the dedication and unveiling of this monument at Green Park, London, on June 28th, 2012, by Her Majesty the Queen, Elizabeth II, and to the attendance at this ceremony of Marshal of the Royal Air Force His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh; and
(b) the attendance at this ceremony of several members of the Royal Family being Their Royal Highnesses, Marshal of the Royal Air Force the Prince of Wales, and Air Marshal Prince Michael of Kent, and Air Chief Marshal the Duke of Kent, and Air Marshal the Duke of Gloucester, and Air Commodore the Earl of Wessex, and Air Commodore the Duke of York, and also Their Royal Highnesses, the Duchess of Gloucester and the Countess of Wessex, revealing the closeness of the Royal Family to Britain's Royal Air Force and their dedication to the memory of all of those who fell in the Royal Air Force in the Second World War; and
(c) Remembrance Day on November 11, 2012, the day for our Canadian veterans and those who served, when we remember, reflect on, and uphold all those who answered the call of duty, and those who fell in active combat, in their assigned theatres of war particularly in the Second World War, in defence of God, King, and Country, the British Commonwealth and the Allied countries; and
(d) Canadian aircrew in World War II, particularly those who served with Royal Air Force Bomber Command, and who are now celebrated in this new memorial unveiled by Her Majesty on June 28th, 2012, being both those with 6 Group Royal Canadian Air Force, and those with the other Bomber Command Squadrons, including some Canadian senators, who faced many Nazi night fighters and Nazi anti-aircraft guns nightly; and
(e) a Canadian from Alberta, a retired airline pilot, Karl Kjarsgaard, who is devoted to the memory of the efforts and sacrifices of the aircrews of Bomber Command, and to his special contribution to the construction of the ceiling of the Memorial, being the aluminum used to build it; and
(f) our own Canadian Bomber Command memorial located at the Bomber Command Museum of Canada in Nanton, Alberta, being a wall of remembrance wherein are inscribed the names of the 10,659 fallen Canadian aircrew as a monument to those who fell in Bomber Command, which for many years was the only Allied offensive against Fortress Europe; and
(g) honour, to celebrate, to uphold and to thank all the remarkable Canadian veterans for their incalculable contributions to humanity during the Second World War and to whom we owe an enormous debt.—(Honourable Senator Munson)
No. 35. (ten)
April 26, 2012—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., calling the attention of the Senate to the importance of food banks to families and the working poor.—(Honourable Senator Tardif)
No. 45. (twelve)
May 15, 2012—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Tardif, calling the attention of the Senate to access to Justice in French in Francophone Minority Communities.—(Honourable Senator Charette-Poulin)
No. 40. (thirteen)
April 24, 2012—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cowan, calling the attention of the Senate to the 30th Anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has done so much to build pride in our country and our national identity.—(Honourable Senator Andreychuk)
No. 9. (thirteen)
December 16, 2011—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Mercer, calling the attention of the Senate to Canada's current level of volunteerism, the impact it has on society, and the future of volunteerism in Canada.—(Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C.)
No. 18. (thirteen)
November 17, 2011—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., calling the attention of the Senate to the issue of poverty in Canada—an issue that is always current and continues to have devastating effects.—(Honourable Senator Cowan)
No. 60. (fifteen)
December 10, 2012—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Oliver, calling the attention of the Senate to the state of diversity in the Senate of Canada and its administration and, in particular, to how we can address the barriers facing the advancement of visible minorities in the Senate workforce and increase their representation by focusing on hiring, retention and promotion.—(Honourable Senator Meredith)
No. 50. (fifteen)
June 21, 2012—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Mitchell, calling the attention of the Senate to how the allegations of sexual harassment and harassment generally can be better handled in the RCMP. —(Honourable Senator Dallaire)
Other
Nil
NOTICE PAPER
MOTIONS
No. 170. (one)
By the Honourable Senator Dallaire:
May 21, 2013—That, notwithstanding the orders of the Senate adopted on Wednesday, June 22, 2011, and on Thursday, June 14, 2012, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence in relation to its study on the services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces, to veterans, and to members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their families, be extended from June 28, 2013, to June 27, 2014.
No. 171.
By the Honourable Senator Runciman:
May 22, 2013—That, for the purposes of its consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs be authorized to meet from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 28, 2013 and from 3:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 29, 2013, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 12-18(1) be suspended in relation thereto.
No. 172.
By the Honourable Senator Jaffer:
May 22, 2013—That, notwithstanding the Order of the Senate adopted on Wednesday, November 30, 2011, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights retain all powers necessary until March 31, 2014 to publicize its findings in its report entitled: Cyberbullying Hurts: Respect for Rights in the Digital Age tabled in the Senate on December 12, 2012.
INQUIRIES
No. 69. (eight)
By the Honourable Senator Hubley:
April 23, 2013—That she will call the attention of the Senate to Canadian children in care, foster families and the child welfare system.
No. 71. (seven)
By the Honourable Senator Jaffer:
April 25, 2013—That she will call the attention of the Senate to radicalization in Canada, and the need for a national strategy that more proactively addresses terrorism by emphasizing a community-based approach to preventing radicalization and to facilitating deradicalization.
No. 72. (three)
By the Honourable Senator Callbeck:
May 7, 2013—That she will call the attention of the Senate to the need for improved mental health care treatment for inmates in federal correctional institutions, and the benefits of providing such treatment through alternative service delivery options.
WRITTEN QUESTIONS
No. 14.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
June 23, 2011—With respect to the government decentralization:
A. Could the Government of Canada provide information on proposals prepared from January 1, 2006, to May 31, 2011, regarding the relocation of federal government departments (or parts thereof), agencies and Crown corporations from the National Capital area to the regions of Canada?
B. Could the Government of Canada provide information on assessments completed from January 1, 2006, to May 31, 2011, regarding which federal government departments (or parts thereof), agencies or Crown corporations could be relocated from the National Capital area to the regions of Canada?
No. 53.
By the Honourable Senator Dallaire:
June 27, 2012—With respect to the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Arras and capture of Vimy Ridge:
April 9, 2017 will mark the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Arras and capture of Vimy Ridge by the Canadian Corps. The first time all four Canadian divisions fought together, Vimy has become a symbol of Canada's "coming of age as a nation.'' On this important anniversary, these events, and those who served our country during them, deserve to be remembered and honoured. Canadians have been asking how the Government of Canada will celebrate this milestone, but to date, little visible efforts have been seen.
Could the government of Canada please indicate:
1. Which departments are responsible for organizing commemoration activities?
(a) What is their division of responsibilities?
2. What are the estimated budgets for said departments?
3. How many staff are working on the anniversary programming? At which level?
4. What are the estimated budgets for said activities?
(a) How are the budgets divided regionally/provincially?
5. What is the overall federal budget for Vimy activities?
6. When did planning for the anniversary celebrations begin?
7. What is the timeline of the planning, implementation, and execution of the Vimy commemoration activities?
(a) When was this timeline agreed upon?
(b) Is it on schedule?
8. On which date will the commemoration activities end?
9. How many Veterans, if any, will participate?
(a) How is this being organized?
(b) What will their role be?
10. How many members of the Canadian Forces, if any, will participate?
(a) How is this being organized?
(b) What will their role be?
11. How much money has already been invested into the project?
(a) Under which department/office has this money been spent?
(b) When were these decisions made?
(c) What has it been spent on? Please provide detailed projects and locations in your response.
12. Will civil society organizations be consulted?
(a) If so, which ones?
(b) If so, what will be their role?
13. To date, have consultants or third parties been involved in planning the activities?
(a) If so, which consultants or third parties?
(b) If so, what was their role and what work was requested of them?
(c) How much has been spent on consultants or third parties, broken down by individual contract?
(d) Were contracts for consultants or third parties awarded through a competitive bidding process, or by other means?
14. Will consultants or third parties be involved in future planning the activities?
(a) If so, which consultants or third parties?
(b) If so, what will be their role and what work will be requested of them?
15. Have any estimates been made for the costs of the project?
(a) What are the results?
16. Will there be a lasting representation or memorial that will repatriate Vimy to Canada (such as a monument, plaque, dedication, etc.)?
(a) If so, what proposals are being considered?
(i) Are proposals still being received/submitted?
(ii) Until when can proposals be submitted?
(b) If so, when were these proposals submitted?
(c) If so, who decided/decides on which proposals will be considered?
(i) When was this person, or group of persons, created?
(ii) How was this decision made?
(d) If so, who decided/decides which proposal will be successful?
(e) If no decision has been made yet, when will proposals be considered?
(f) What is the budget for a lasting memorial?
(i) When was this budget decided?
(g) If so, please provide a copy of the proposals being considered
(h) If so, who was/will be allowed to submit proposals?
(i) When was this decision made?
No. 59.
By the Honourable Senator Callbeck:
December 10, 2012—In Bill C-38, the Budget Implementation Act, the Conservative government set the stage for drastic changes to the Employment Insurance Act, including a new Appeals Tribunal for all federal social programs and a new definition for the term "Suitable Employment''.
Farming and fishing communities, and employers that are seasonally-dependent need a functional Employment Insurance system to make sure that skilled workers can transition smoothly between those seasonal jobs.
In addition, the changes will require Employment Insurance claimants to keep daily detailed records of their job search. Given that more than 42% of Canadians have literacy levels that are considered not functional, many claimants may have difficulty keeping written records of their job search despite actively looking for work.
1. Has Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada conducted any job market study to determine the impact on the availability of skilled workers for seasonally-dependent industries as a result of the changes to the Employment Insurance Act? If so, what were the results?
2. Has Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada considered any job market initiatives in the event that seasonally-dependent employers are unable to find adequate skilled workers?
3. Has Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada estimated the number of anticipated Employment Insurance appeals that the Tribunal be required to hear per year?
4. Has Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada conducted any feasibility study on the workload that will be required by each member of the new Tribunal?
5. Has Human Resources and Social Development Canada or Service Canada developed a training system for Tribunal members? If so, what does this training entail?
6. Given that Tribunal members will be Ottawa-based, how will local economic realities be taken into account when hearing Employment Insurance appeals?
7. Has Human Resources and Social Development Canada or Service Canada developed policy or guidelines to address the challenges of possible low functional literacy levels among Employment Insurance claimants?
8. How has Human Resources and Social Development Canada or Service Canada trained its employees to recognize the needs of Employment Insurance claimants with low functional literacy levels?
No. 60.
By the Honourable Senator Callbeck:
December 10, 2012—1. In August 2012, the Minister of Human Resources announced changes to the Working While on Claim Pilot Project. This pilot project allowed Employment Insurance (EI) recipients to collect benefits even if they are able to find part-time work.
The previous system clawed back benefits once the part-time wages exceeded 40% of benefits, or $75 a week, whichever is greater. The change means that the federal government will now clawback all new earnings, from the first dollar earned, at a rate of 50%.
In October, the Minister of Human Resources announced a transition measure that those EI recipients who were working while on claim between August 7, 2011 and August 4, 2012 will be given the option of reverting to the rules that existed under the previous pilot project.
(a) How many individuals have utilized this pilot project in each fiscal year, by province, from the year of the project's inception?
(b) Has the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada estimated how many EI recipients who were working while on claim between August 7, 2011 and August 4, 2012 will opt to revert to the rules that existed under the previous pilot project? If so, what are the results?
(c) Has Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada undertaken any analysis or case studies to compare the impact on income, based on factors such as occupation, wage levels, etc., for individuals in each province between the previous and the new pilot project? If so, what are the results?
(d) Has Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada undertaken any study to estimate the negative impact to the overall economies of each province as a result of this change? If so, what are the results?
(e) Has Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada undertaken any study to estimate the cost to social services in each province as a result of this change? If so, what are the results?
2. On September 15, 2012, the Minister of Human Resources allowed the Extended Employment Insurance Benefits Pilot Project to expire. This pilot project provided an extra five weeks of Employment Insurance benefits to people living in 21 designated regions with high unemployment.
As a province with a chronically high unemployment rate, Prince Edward Island is one of those regions. In addition, the three primary industries of the province are seasonal in nature: agriculture, fisheries, and tourism.
(a) How many individuals have utilized this pilot project in each fiscal year, by province, from the year of the project's inception?
(b) Has Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada undertaken any study to estimate the negative impact to the overall economies of each province as a result of the cancellation of this pilot project? If so, what are the results?
(c) Has Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada undertaken any study to estimate the cost to social services in each province as a result of the cancellation of this pilot project? If so, what are the results?
(d) What initiatives will Human Resources and Skills Development Canada or Service Canada implement to ensure that EI recipients who work in seasonal industries can weather five extra weeks without income?
No. 62.
By the Honourable Senator Callbeck:
December 13, 2012—1. During the September 26, 2012 meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, Mr. Jeremy Rudin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance, said that the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) has received funding transferred from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of financial literacy.
(a) How much has been transferred from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the FCAC for the purpose of financial literacy in each of the last five fiscal years?
(b) How much of the transferred funds has been spent for the purpose of financial literacy in each of the last 5 fiscal years? Would you please provide a detailed list of all financial literacy related expenditures for each of the last five fiscal years?
2. Section 18 of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act provides the Commissioner of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada authority to levy assessments on financial institutions.
(a) How much has been assessed against each financial institution in each of the last five fiscal years? How much in total has been assessed against financial institutions altogether in each of the last five fiscal years?
(b) How much has been paid by each financial institution in each of the last five fiscal years? How much has been collected from financial institutions altogether in each of the last five fiscal years?
No. 63.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
February 14, 2013—With respect to fines issued for violations of the Do Not Call List:
1. For Pecon Software Ltd., and their fine of $495,000, could the Government of Canada please indicate:
(a) Did the company seek a review of the fine;
(b) What was the total dollar value of the fine after a review, if any, was completed;
(c) Did the company request a negotiated settlement of the fine;
(i) Was a negotiated settlement reached;
(ii) What was the total value of the negotiated settlement, if any;
(d) What is the total dollar value of the fine, if any, that has been paid to date;
(e) Has the company refused to pay the fine or reach a negotiated settlement?
2. For Avaneesh Software, and their fine of $12,000, could the Government of Canada please indicate:
(a) Did the company seek a review of the fine;
(b) What was the total dollar value of the fine after a review, if any, was completed;
(c) Did the company request a negotiated settlement of the fine;
(i) Was a negotiated settlement reached;
(ii) What was the total value of the negotiated settlement, if any;
(d) What is the total dollar value of the fine, if any, that has been paid to date;
(e) Has the company refused to pay the fine or reach a negotiated settlement?
No. 67.
By the Honourable Senator Mitchell:
March 5, 2013—With regard to the Prime Minister's statement in the House of Commons on Wednesday, January 30, 2013, that "job creation and economic prosperity are our top priorities. In fact, the Canadian economy has created more than 9000,000 net new jobs since the end of the recession. That is the best record of all G7 countries:''
(a) For the period from July 1, 2009 to March 1, 2013, out of the new 900,000 net new jobs the government claims to have created;
(i) How many of the jobs were filled by temporary foreign workers?
(ii) How many were part-time jobs (fewer than 30 hours per week)?
(iii) How many were indeterminate jobs (permanent, full-time)?
(iv) How many were specified term contract jobs (contracts of 6 months or less)?
(v) What percentage paid above minimum wage?
(b) How many jobs were lost between the period of July 1, 2009 and March 1, 2013?
(c) For the period from January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2013;
(i) How many net new jobs were created?
(ii) How many of the jobs were filled by temporary foreign workers?
(iii) How many were part-time jobs (fewer than 30 hours per week)?
(iv) How many were indeterminate jobs (permanent, full-time)?
(v) How many were specified term contract jobs (contracts of 6 months or less)?
(vi) What percentage paid above minimum wage?
(d) How many jobs were lost between the period of January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2013?
No. 68.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
March 19, 2013—From the February 21, 2013, CBC News article by David Simms, "Offshore tax dodgers coming under greater pressure, Canada Revenue Agency audits of tax haven cheats yield 44 convictions in 6 years'', the article is quoted as saying:
"The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) said that in the six years to March 31, 2012, its investigations have resulted in the conviction of 44 people for offences related to money and other assets held offshore.''
With respect to these 44 convictions, please provide:
1. The details of each conviction, including:
(a) The name of the individual(s) convicted;
(b) The name and type (i.e. civil or criminal) of offense;
(c) The amount of money or the type of asset and the value of the asset involved;
(d) The location of the money or asset involved;
(e) The possible range of penalties/sentences upon conviction;
(f) The actual penalty and/or sentence received;
(g) Whether the conviction was achieved through sentencing, plea bargain, settlement, etc.; and
(h) The amount of time that passed between the commencement of an audit, investigation, or some other form of compliance action in respect of the offence and the date of conviction.
2. The total number of offences related to money and other assets held offshore that were considered/referred for civil prosecution during the six year period but never pursued.
3. The total number of offences related to money and other assets held offshore that were considered/referred for criminal prosecution during the six year period but never pursued.
4. The total number of offences related to money and other assets held offshore that were prosecuted civilly during this period but were thrown out of court or lost in court.
5. The total number of offences related to money and other assets held offshore that were prosecuted criminally during this period but were thrown out of court or lost in court.
No. 69.
By the Honourable Senator Mitchell:
April 16, 2013—The Canadian Forces Operational Stress Injury Social Support (OSISS) Program provides confidential peer support and social support to CF members, Veterans, and their families, affected by an operational stress injury (OSI) such as anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) resulting from military service. The OSISS program also provides peer support to families who have lost a loved one due to military service.
Members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) also suffer operational stress injuries resulting from both traumatic service experiences in the line of duty as well through incidents of workplace harassment. Given the demanding operational tempo of overseas deployments over the past ten years, as well as allegations of workplace harassment that have been made public; it can be expected that the number of RCMP members suffering from PTSD would likewise have increased.
On March 15th, 2012, in response to questions regarding the resources provided to members of the RCMP suffering from PTSD, Minister Toews stated that: ``The RCMP continues to offer services to treat members with operational stress injuries such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We will continue to rely on the experts to ensure that the mental health of our RCMP officers is taken care of.''
In light of the Minister's statements, would the government please answer the following questions:
1. What are the current resources and services available for members of the RCMP who are suffering from OSI, including PTSD?
2. What are the current resources and services available for RCMP Veterans who are suffering from OSI, including PTSD?
3. What are the current resources and services available for families of the members of the RCMP who are suffering from OSI, including PTSD?
4. As of April 4th, 2013 how many RCMP officers are claiming partial or full disability for PTSD?
(a) Can the Government provide those statistics, for each year, from the year 2000 until 2012?
5. Does the RCMP keep statistics on the number of incidents of RCMP members who have committed suicide?
6. Does the RCMP keep statistics on the number of incidents of RCMP Veterans who have committed suicide?
7. If statistics on suicide rates among current members and veterans of the RCMP are not being kept, can the government please provide a rationale for why they are not doing so?
No. 70.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
April 25, 2013—With respect to correspondence from Parliamentarians addressed to the Minister of National Revenue, including, but not limited to, letters, emails, petitions, etc. for the period September 1, 2010 to present:
1. What is the amount of correspondence, initiated by Parliamentarians (MPs & Senators), that has gone unanswered:
(a) after three months;
(b) after six months?
2. What percentage of correspondence not answered after three months was from:
(a) Conservative MPs and Senators;
(b) Liberal MPs and Senators;
(c) NDP MPs; and
(d) Other MPs and Senators?
3. What percentage of correspondence not answered after six months was from:
(a) Conservative MPs and Senators;
(b) Liberal MPs and Senators;
(c) NDP MPs; and
(d) Other MPs and Senators?
4. What is the average response time for correspondence received from a:
(a) Conservative MP or Senator;
(b) Liberal MP or Senator;
(c) NDP MP; and
(d) Other MPs or Senators?
No. 71.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
April 25, 2013—With respect to the Community Volunteer Income Tax Program (CVITP) in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island:
I recently received a letter of concern regarding the Canada Revenue Agency's (CRA) decision to cut support for the CVITP in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
The CVITP is a tremendous service for Island seniors and other individuals who have difficulty completing and filing their tax returns. Cutting support for this initiative negatively impacts people who are already feeling the brunt of Federal Government cutbacks, such as Veterans or their surviving spouses.
The CRA is anticipated to eliminate more employees in the coming months than any other federal department and the impact of these cuts was already expected to affect service delivery for Canadians. The further decision to eliminate support for the CVITP may make it more difficult for many Islanders to receive OAS supplementary benefits and GST rebates, to which they are entitled.
For many years, CRA had provided the CVITP with equipment and supplies such as computers, printers, toner and a phone line, as well as access to a CRA employee in a local office that can answer questions quickly as they arise. I wrote Minister of National Revenue Gail Shea on March 6, 2013, asking her to confirm that these resources have indeed been cut, and urging her to restore support for the CVITP in Charlottetown should that be the case.
I wrote the Minister again on April 10, 2013 asking her when I could expect to receive a response to my letter. I have yet to hear from the Minister.
In light of the above, would the Government please answer the following:
1. Has support for the CVITP in Charlottetown been cut or reduced compared to previous years?
2. What level of support has the CVITP in Charlottetown received from CRA over the past five years, broken down by fiscal year, including:
(a) The nature of the support offered each year; and
(b) The cost to CRA to provide this support
3. Does the CRA have plans to restore support for the CVITIP in Charlottetown?
No. 72.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
April 25, 2013—With respect to the Disability Tax Credit, would the Government please provide the following information:
For the period 2005 to present, broken down by fiscal year:
(a) How many people have applied for the credit?
(b) How many applications have been rejected?
(c) On what grounds were those claims rejected?
(d) How many applications were rejected upon further request for further information from the family practitioner?
(e) How many applications were rejected due to a lack of further information from the family practitioner?
(f) How many rejections were overturned upon receipt of further information from the family practitioner?
(g) How many rejections were formally appealed?
(h) How many formal appeals were successful?
No. 73.
By the Honourable Senator Mitchell:
May 2, 2013—With respect to medical services available for Commissioned and Non-Commissioned (NCO) members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP):
1. What are the various medical classifications for which an RCMP member would be eligible to apply for sick leave?
2. What are the medical reasons which would classify RCMP members as unfit for duty due to an Operational Stress Injury (OSI), including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)?
(a) Please describe the process that an RCMP member would undertake to apply for medical services due to and OSI, including PTSD.
(b) Please describe the services and benefits that would be available to an RCMP member should they be deemed unfit for duty due to an OSI, including PTSD.
(c) If such a classification does not exist, can the government please provide a rationale for why it does not have a classification system for such an injury, and why its policies are not in line with the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) medical rationale.
3. What is the average length of time (months/years) that an RCMP member is away from his/her duties on sick leave, due to an OSI, including PTSD?
(a) How many (total number and percentage of the overall force structure) members are currently unfit for duty, or are on sick leave, due to an OSI, including PTSD?
(b) Beginning in the year 2006, and for each consecutive year since, how many (total number and percentage of the overall force structure) members were unfit for duty, or on sick leave, due to an OSI, including PTSD?
No. 74.
By the Honourable Senator Mitchell:
May 2, 2013—With respect to the April 22, 2013 meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence when Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Commissioner Paulson stated that: "I can be brief in the answer. I have addressed that specific concern. I share that concern with you. You start to make promotion dependent on completion of [the supervisor development program and a manager development program].'' Mr. Paulson was responding to a question by the Honourable Senator Mitchell who queried that "I notice that you have a supervisor development program and a manager development program, and those have been mandatory. However, statistics we saw in one report showed that of the 1872 that took the supervisory development program, only 699 completed it, and of the 699 that took the manager development program, only 276 completed it...How do you get people to understand that it is important that they take these courses, listen to your orders and listen to your command structure?''
Can you please provide the documents or policy directives that indicate that the Supervisors Development Program and Managers Development Program are, or will be, mandatory pre-requisites for promotion in the RCMP?
No. 75.
By the Honourable Senator Mitchell:
May 2, 2013—1. With respect to the educational requirements for Non-Commissioned (NCO) members of the RCMP, including Corps Sergeant Major; Sergeant Major; Staff Sergeant Major; Staff Sergeant; Sergeant; and Corporal;
(a) What percentage has obtained a College diploma?
(b) What percentage has obtained an Undergraduate University Degree?
(c) What percentage has obtained a Master's University Degree?
(d) What percentage has obtained a Phd. University Degree?
2. With respect to the educational requirements for Commissioned members of the RCMP, including Commissioner; Deputy Commissioner; Assistant Commissioner; Chief Superintendent; Superintendent; and Inspector;
(a) What percentage has obtained a College diploma?
(b) What percentage has obtained an Undergraduate University Degree?
(c) What percentage has obtained a Master's University Degree?
(d) What Percentage has obtained a Phd. University Degree?
3. With respect to the educational requirements for Non-Commissioned (NCO) members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), including the Army, Navy, and Air Force;
(a) What percentage has obtained a College diploma?
(b) What percentage has obtained an Undergraduate University Degree?
(c) What percentage has obtained a Master's University Degree?
(d) What Percentage has obtained a Phd. University Degree?
4. With respect to the educational requirements for Commissioned members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), including the Army, Navy, and Air Force;
(a) What percentage has obtained a College diploma?
(b) What percentage has obtained an Undergraduate University Degree?
(c) What percentage has obtained a Master's University Degree?
(d) What Percentage has obtained a Phd. University Degree?
